baggygreenmania wrote:I am talking purely about the state of play when Smith sent us back in. We had just rolled them for a meagre score. The bowlers were on a high.. the weather was not that energy sapping.. England were morally at their lowest ebb. They were ripe for the picking. Lambs to the slaughter. Reckon Howard had the FINAL say. Decision should be Smiths and his alone.

Would Dennis Lillee have taken this without protest in such a situation? No he would have told his skipper "give me the ball and I will finish off these Poms"

That's the difference between Starc and Dennis Lillee. Starcevic is kind of like the Andrew Bogut of cricket.

Everything going as per expectation.Much as I hate to acknowledge it, have to say England have really upped their game in this second innings, favourable conditions or not.Fielding/catching has been sharp too.That's what usually happens when you've been given a sniff when you were totally down and out.England are not the losers many like to project them as.In fact, I think this projection works to their benefit.

Paddles wrote:The sad thing is - Aus already may have enough runs to win but I like the extra level of intrigue the night session and ball age/condition therein brings.

England will want to be batting all or mosr next session to prevent a new or near new pinkie under lights.

Amazing test with plenty of Over left under nice weather,england need to save their wicket and slowly and surely increase run rate as match progress.Hazelwood and Lyon good bowler in the second innings but I do not worry much of MS / Cummins

raja wrote:Woakes - 36 very valuable runs in the 1st innings, and 5 wickets in the match so far.Definitely the world's best all-rounder right now, in the absence of Stokes.Close behind him, Craig Overton.

They're the good men, but if you want a tail end test all rounder - you want a de Grandhomme.

Colin is slowly chasing down Shakib.

Last edited by Paddles on Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsmanA third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

So what's the highest team score for a completed innings (all-out) for a side which has a highest individual score of not more than 20?

I remember at Kanpur in 1976-77 against New Zealand, India managed to get 524/9 decl, and the highest individual score was 70 by Mohinder Amarnath. Gavaskar, Viswanath, Mankad, Venkataraghavan all got 50s. Even Bedi scored a breezy 50*, hitting Peter Petherick for 3 sixes in an over.

So what's the highest team score for a completed innings (all-out) for a side which has a highest individual score of not more than 20?

I remember at Kanpur in 1976-77 against New Zealand, India managed to get 524/9 decl, and the highest individual score was 70 by Mohinder Amarnath. Gavaskar, Viswanath, Mankad, Venkataraghavan all got 50s. Even Bedi scored a breezy 50*, hitting Peter Petherick for 3 sixes in an over.

Almost a typical raja anecdote mentioning a 1970's match, an Indian great spinner - but NZ drew this particular match.

But NZ lost the series - so its not entirely atypical.

I am jesting raja- don't take offence.

Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsmanA third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

So what's the highest team score for a completed innings (all-out) for a side which has a highest individual score of not more than 20?

I remember at Kanpur in 1976-77 against New Zealand, India managed to get 524/9 decl, and the highest individual score was 70 by Mohinder Amarnath. Gavaskar, Viswanath, Mankad, Venkataraghavan all got 50s. Even Bedi scored a breezy 50*, hitting Peter Petherick for 3 sixes in an over.

Almost a typical raja anecdote mentioning a 1970's match, an Indian great spinner - but NZ drew this particular match.

But NZ lost the series - so its not entirely atypical.

I am jesting raja- don't take offence.

No offence taken.

I mentioned an Indian great spinner here, but in the capacity of a batsman this time - it was a complete surprise for us, listening to the commentary. (Didn't have TV in those days). Bedi and Chandra were the ideal No.9/10 for any opposition team - together they'd barely muster 5-10 runs between them, most times. :-)

But this time, all the Indian batsmen were making merry - and Bedi joined in, hitting poor Petherick (who'd only made his debut a couple of months earlier, getting a hat-trick on debut) for 3 in an over. (Bedi would be at the brutal end of some hitting in a much more important Test at Karachi a couple of years later).

Even Chandra, the ultimate No11 (it's between him and Chris Martin), got into double figures with a boundary - and all 11 Indian batsmen got into double figures!!!

Paddles wrote:Almost a typical raja anecdote mentioning a 1970's match, an Indian great spinner - but NZ drew this particular match.

But NZ lost the series - so its not entirely atypical.

It was 2-0 for India, but could very easily have been 3-0.

The scoreboard doesn't show that Venkat missed a very easy chance of Andy Roberts, when NZ were 8 or 9 down and still far from saving the follow-on.

It was uncharacteristic of Venkat - he was one of the sharper fielders in the side.

To his credit, Roberts (himself quite new, and certainly to sub-continent conditions) hung in there and played a very valuable knock.

And then, in the second innings again, it was a fighting partnership between Lees and O'Sullivan that saved the game for NZ. Credit to them, though it was very frustrating for us Indian schoolboys. I remember being glued to radio for the commentary of that series.

India was by far the better side in those conditions - NZ was a weak side then.

It was like, get Turner and you've broken the batting. Play out Hadlee, and you're safe. :-)

Even after 11,000 test runs cook doesn’t look convincing on the front foot on the off side. Holds the bat out in front so far away from his right foot. Like a radiator mounted too far away from the wall.

Boycs wrote:Even after 11,000 test runs cook doesn’t look convincing on the front foot on the off side. Holds the bat out in front so far away from his right foot. Like a radiator mounted too far away from the wall.

I don't care how unconvincing he looks.What's most important is he's still there.

Paddles wrote:Almost a typical raja anecdote mentioning a 1970's match, an Indian great spinner - but NZ drew this particular match.

But NZ lost the series - so its not entirely atypical.

It was 2-0 for India, but could very easily have been 3-0.

The scoreboard doesn't show that Venkat missed a very easy chance of Andy Roberts, when NZ were 8 or 9 down and still far from saving the follow-on.

It was uncharacteristic of Venkat - he was one of the sharper fielders in the side.

To his credit, Roberts (himself quite new, and certainly to sub-continent conditions) hung in there and played a very valuable knock.

And then, in the second innings again, it was a fighting partnership between Lees and O'Sullivan that saved the game for NZ. Credit to them, though it was very frustrating for us Indian schoolboys. I remember being glued to radio for the commentary of that series.

India was by far the better side in those conditions - NZ was a weak side then.

It was like, get Turner and you've broken the batting. Play out Hadlee, and you're safe. :-)

NZ has been weaker than 77/78 but even later when NZ was stronger - it was play out Hadlee and you're safe.

There's a famous disparaging quote from NZ's 86 tour of England that still does the rounds now. The gist is that facing NZ's attack was facing a World XI at one end with Hadlee, and the Barnsly Village Second team at the other. NZ won the 86 tour tho.

Last edited by Paddles on Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsmanA third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

When you have even the remotest change of dislodging a bloke with 11000+ test runs under his belt you take the risk. Yes umpires need to show some more guts instead of turning everything down. I would like to see a rule change that impels umpires to call a review if there is any doubt in their mind.

baggygreenmania wrote:When you have even the remotest change of dislodging a bloke with 11000+ test runs under his belt you take the risk. Yes umpires need to show some more guts instead of turning everything down. I would like to see a rule change that impels umpires to call a review if there is any doubt in their mind.

Warner was the one who said it was umpire's call in the field.

I don't know why we have NZ 'neutral' umpires in these series. History shows their bias toward England.